FARMERS AND THE PLAN
By H. D. WALSTON
But it is not enough to set targets. For the targets to be achieved materials must be made available to the farmer, and incen- tives must be adjusted so that the new priority crops become more profitable than the others. On the whole this has been done ; there is a slight increase in the price of grains—rather more than is needed to offset wage increases—and the same applies to potatoes and sugar beet. Linseed, on the other hand, a crop which is valuable not only as supplying fodder in the shape of linseed cake, but also as yielding vegetable oils, has a large rise from £45 per ton to £55 per ton. But it is in livestock and livestock products that the biggest increases take place. The price of milk is raised by over zid. a gallon, fat cattle and sheep by between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent., pigs by 15 per cent, eggs by rather over to per cent. and wool by 35 per cent. Thus the incentive is now provided to shift production in increasing measure from foods for direct human consumption to the more expensive types of animal products.
But the farmer needs more than this incentive ; he needs a removal of those factors which make livestock farming a painstaking job ; above all, he needs more labour and more feeding-stuffs. On these two crucial points the Government's plan is of necessity vague. Apart from allowing the farmer to retain 20 per cent_ of his wheat and barley for his own use, no more is said than, "On present prospects considerably increased quantities of feeding stuffs should be available from abroad by 1949," and again, "Plans are also being made for substantially expanding and improving the conservation of grass for winter use." With the best will in the world, a farmer cannot feed his livestock on encouraging prospects and future plans,
any more than "a review of all the possible sources of additional labour," which we are told the Government have in hand, can provide a satisfactory substitute for a milker when it comes to looking after cows. The success of this ambitious plan for increasing live- stock will, in the final analysis, depend upon the actual arrival of the increased supplies of feeding-stuffs and the actual recruitment of labour, both British and foreign. This latter will in its turn depend largely upon the supply of houses and hostels in rural areas. It is encouraging to know that this time the Government wean business, but judgement must be reserved until we see how successful that business really is.
But even without more labour the farmer can increase his pro- duction if he is able to get a greater output from every man he employs. This he can do by mechanisation, which includes, not only the usual types of farm machinery, but also better designed buildings. Under the new plan we are promised more machinery and more materials for buildings. We can only hope that they will be forthcoming in adequate quantities and without delay. But we must remember that, even if they are allocated to the factory or builder to-day, the farmer will not benefit for nine months to a year.
A particularly effective feature of the Government's scheme is the decision to give a grain of £4 per acre for grassland three years old and over which is ploughed up in the next two years and either re- seeded direct or sown to an approved crop. This will undoubtedly encourage farmers to plough up grass which although still useful has already passed its peak of productivity. As it is possible for them to sow once more down to grass, they will be able to maintain the arable grassland balance of their holding. Another good point is the grant of £4 per head for steer calves and £3 per head for heifer calves of approved types if reared to the age of twelve months. This will go a long way towards increasing our livestock population, as farmers will think twice before sending for slaughter calves which, if kept a few months longer, will bring them in an assured sum.
So much for the effect of the plan upon the farmer. Now what about the consumer? The questions he is likely to ask are: "How soon will this planned increase find its way on to my plte? ", "How much will it cost? " and "How is the cost to be met? " The first question can only be answered in a negative way. There can be no possible increase resulting from this plan until after next harvest, which means that it can have no effect on our rations until the end of 1948 at the earliest. Even then it will start slowly—considerably more slowly than if the planned increase were to be in crops for direct human consumption, instead of livestock products, so that it is unlikely that it will have any significant effect on our rations for two or three years.
"How much will it cost? " That depends largely on the success of the plan. The more successful, the greater the cost. And in talking of cos: we must remember that this is not confined merely to cash. It must be paid for also by smaller allocations of raw materials and manpower to other industries, and this in turn means fewer goods for the home market and fewer goods for export. Always in talking of an agricultural expansion we must realise that agriculture can expand only if industry contracts. We must realise that more houses for rural workers mean fewer houses for people in the towns, and that more agricultural machinery means less industrial machinery. When we work out the cost of an agricultural expansion such as this we must be alive to the full cost and to the effect it will have on our general standard of living and not simply on our bank balances.
With regard to the third question, "How is the cost to be met?" the Government is silent. We do not know which industries will have to contract so that agriculture may expand. We do not know which section of the population will have to go without houses so that new recruits to agriculture may have somewhere to live, and we do not know from what source the increased prices are to be paid. Eventually they can only be paid out of the consumer's pocket, but are they to be paid directly, so that all our food costs more, so that the cost of living rises, and so that wage rates in other industries have to be adjusted in order to meet the increased cost of living? Or are subsidies to the consumer to be raised so that the pint of milk and the Sunday joint will cost the same, but an increased contribution will be made out of the Exchequer to bridge the widening gap between what the consumer pays and what the consumer gets? These are all questions which must be answered sooner or later, and they are questions of the utmost importance. In the meantime all we can say is that the increased expenditure which is necessitated by the Agricultural Plan will nndoubtedly result in increased production of livestock products at the expense of food for direct human consumption, and, depending upon the implementa- tion of the promise to make additional labour and machinery available, should result within the next two or three years in an increased production of food in the United Kingdom. The direction in which agriculture is being led is undoubtedly right. The increased prices will encourage farmers—though perhaps not so much as the Govern- ment seems to expect. But it must not be forgotten that even with the present scale of prices there are more farmers anxious to buy machinery and improve buildings than can be supplied with their requirements. Higher returns without substantial increases in the allocation of raw materiats will only mean longer queues outside the machinery dealers' shops and more frustration among the farmers.
Previous page
